The Kerala High Court on Wednesday stayed the order of a trial court discharging Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) State President K Surendran in an election bribery case [State of Kerala v. K Surendran].
Surendran is accused of threatening and bribing Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) candidate K Sundara during the 2021 Kerala Legislative Assembly Elections from the Manjeswaram constituency.
Justice K Babu today issued notice to Surendran on the State government's revision petition against the order of the Kasargode Sessions Court discharging the politician.
The prosecution case against Surendran is that when he was standing for election from Manjeswaram as the BJP candidate, he forced K Sundara to drop out of the election.
Surendran and the other accused allegedly threatened Sundara and later bribed him with ₹2.5 lakh and a mobile phone worth ₹8,300 in March 2021.
Sundara later withdrew his candidacy. Voting for the election occurred in April 2021 and Surendran lost by a small margin to Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) candidate AKM Ashraf.
A first information report (FIR) was later registered against Surendran and others based on a private complaint filed before a Magistrate Court by the Left Democratic Front (LDF) candidate who stood for election from the same constituency.
Surendran was alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 171(E) (bribery), 171(B) (election bribery), 342 (wrongful confinement), 506(i) (criminal intimidation) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
He was also charged under provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as Sundara is from a Scheduled caste community.
Surendran subsequently filed an application to be discharged from the case before the Kasargode Sessions Court.
He claimed that the allegations levelled against him were false and politically motivated. He also contended that the cognizance of the election offences was taken only after the expiry of the period of limitation.
The Sessions Court allowed Surendran's application for discharge opining that the ingredients to attract the offences of criminal intimidation and wrongful confinement were not present and neither were the ingredients to attract the offences under the SC/ST Act.
The Sessions Court also said that even though there is sufficient material to frame charges for the election bribery, the court has no authority to frame charge after the period of limitation.
This led to the present criminal revision petition by the State challenging the Sessions Court's order.
As per the State's plea, the Sessions Court relied on the statement of a witness given before the registration of the FIR.
This was improper in view of various precedents of the Supreme Court which holds that the defence case cannot be put forth at the stage of framing charge, it has been submitted.
"The court below has gone beyond the jurisdiction available under section 227 of CRPC and proceeded to hold a mini trial purely based on materials which are not put to proof...Consideration of existence of sufficient ground does not mean that the court can evaluate the materials produced by the police as if it is conducting the trial of the accused," the petition states.
The State has also argued that the prosecution material was more than sufficient to put the accused to trial.
Further, it is the State's case that the bar for taking congisance of the election offences after the period of limitation is not applicable in this case as there are other cognisable offences as well.